Jump to content
Hellenism.Net

 

Sign in to follow this  
admin

The case against democracy

Recommended Posts

An interesting article about how democracy (even though still by far the best possible political system out there) seems to be failing us, as a society, be in it Greece with the ascent to power of a group of idiots, in the UK with the Brexiters, and in the US with the voters/fans of Trump and Hillary.

 

Plato was the first one to see the inefficiencies and problems of democracy in his work the "Republic". Since then, despite all criticism, democracy has proven to be the best political system we have.

 

Caleb Craln is doing a good job reviewing the past and the possible future of democracy in his article in the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/07/the-case-against-democracy

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Democracy has become a scheme that ensures politicians can not be held accountable. That's all it is. Perhaps we need a mechanism that enforces accountability. Lets say by putting every politician at the end of his/her term automatically on trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha ha, that's a pretty radical approach. Or we could bring back ostracizing, as the ancient Athenians did.

 

Reality is that as in Greece and in the UK, it's very possible that the "silent" majority will have to live with the voting choices of a number of dimwitted voters who feel more compelled than the rest of the population to cast their vote and make their voices heard.

 

Now on the other hands, who's to say who's a dimwit and who's a politically responsible voter? Or to take it even further, who's to say who's a dimwit and who's a responsible politician? Wasn't it "responsible" politicians who threw the US in the war with Iraq? Weren't they the ones who insisted about the presence of nuclear weapons in Iraq and justified a war which destroyed Iraq and created a vacuum which was later filled by ISIS?

 

There is clearly no black and white answer to this question. Democracy is clearly, and by far, the best political system we have tested and which works relatively better (in most cases) than all other political systems we have developed. Does it need improvement? Absolutely yes. The thing though is that after all those years and hard fought battles of women, people of colour, people of low income etc. to get access to vote, it would be an impossible battle to try altering the voting system and giving more power to the educated elite (which would not guarantee better government anyway - despite what some people mentioned in the article below - want to believe).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FriendofGreece

Democracy, or one person one vote as we understand it, or "one person one dollar" as someone said it, is meaningless if the candidates are not worthy of being elected. It boils down to withholding your vote as the only means to express your dissatisfaction of the choices in front of you. Even if somehow, you manage to vote the one you think is the lesser evil, that candidate will soon forget election promises and you end up being blamed as the one having voted for him. 

 

Democracy would be good to have where there is meritocracy. But how does one go about determining who has merit? I guess, at least the ones who judge merit should have merit themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Friends,

I think our understanding of democracy differs. You seem to think that democracy is meant to produce the best government possible but that's not in the specs. Democracy is meant to produce the Government the People WANT. Granted, what people WANT is often enough not good for them. Nevertheless, that's what a working Democracy is supposed to deliver.

 

If you start talking about what's BEST you open the door to tyranny. Who exactly determines what's best?

 

The "enlightened" intelligentsia?

The visionary "Leaders"

The screaming "Activist" mobs?

The Bankers and Investors?

 

What makes you think that they have the good of what admin calls "The silent Majority" in mind?

 

The problem with democracy, in Greece for example, is not that it fails to produce a "Good" government. Whatever that may be. It fails to produce the Government people voted for.

 

Take Tsipras, he promised that he will tear up the austerity agreement and chase out the lenders. That's what got him elected. And what did he do?

Sign up for more austerity and begging the lenders for more. His crime is: He lied to get elected and he should be put on trial for that.

 

To argue that if he had delivered on his promises Greece would have suffered is absolutely pointless. By doing so one compares the known (Greece being in the Crapper now) with an unknown future that would have materialised if he had remained true to his words.

And who is to say that that hypothetical future would be better or worse from what we have now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FriendofGreece

If democracy is to produce the government the people want, but people's choice is reduced to, for example, two candidates who people don't really want but, well, let's go to vote because it is our civic duty, then voting does not really give the government people want and therefore defeats the purpose of democracy. The silent majority is what it is, silent. What worth is a silent voice? Maybe on the ballot, there should be negative votes for candidates you don't like.

 

Furthermore, if democracy is to produce the government people want, broken election promises will make sure that that government which people want will not be realized. Nobody knows if Tsipras has done what he promised, where Greece would be now, but I think the people would support him because he would be in the same boat like them, leading them by the way and that is what he was voted to do.

 

I think people would want a good government, not necessarily the best. As a starting point, some minimum standards for candidates could be set, for example, like no corruption, a track record of previous achievements in public service, education, etc. That should weed out quite a lot of people already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

If democracy is to produce the government the people want, but people's choice is reduced to, for example, two candidates who people don't really want but, well, let's go to vote because it is our civic duty, then voting does not really give the government people want and therefore defeats the purpose of democracy. The silent majority is what it is, silent. What worth is a silent voice? Maybe on the ballot, there should be negative votes for candidates you don't like.

 

Furthermore, if democracy is to produce the government people want, broken election promises will make sure that that government which people want will not be realized. Nobody knows if Tsipras has done what he promised, where Greece would be now, but I think the people would support him because he would be in the same boat like them, leading them by the way and that is what he was voted to do.

 

I think people would want a good government, not necessarily the best. As a starting point, some minimum standards for candidates could be set, for example, like no corruption, a track record of previous achievements in public service, education, etc. That should weed out quite a lot of people already.

Everybody is obsessing with Hillary and Donald here in the US right now but there are also Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Darell Castle, Chris Keniston, Ed Baker, David Boarman, Ken Cross, Robert Dionisio, Evan McMullin, Clifton Roberts and a few more. Problem is that no one heard of the others cause the US has a two party system and independent candidates rarely reach the level of recognition that could earn them statistically noticeable percentage of the vote. And in a presidential system the winner takes all.

 

Nevertheless, there is no law that prohibits any eligible citizen from running for president. If Americans deem only the candidates of the Democratic or Republican president electable, they will get just what they want: A Democratic or Republican President.

 

And who's to say into what mess they will be dragged to in the name of some obscure principles or "Moral Imperatives". All things considered though I have to say that American democracy does work, somewhat, which can not be said for Europe.

 

Personally, I value Integrity above all, and yes I would have supported Tsipras, if he had stood by his word. If he had done so he would deserve respect. Instead he turned out to be a lying flip flopping clown who would do anything to remain in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FriendofGreece

I have never heard about those others you mentioned, but then I don't really follow US politics. However, I think what is "wrong" with the US system is it seems that if you have more money from political donations to spend on campaigning and ads, you are more visible and may influence more people who don't know better.

 

I like that any eligible citizen can run for president. But again, without donations, he can only go so far in the system. This is what I have always hoped for Greece, that a person who cares for Greek people will appear and get the support of the people and be voted to lead Greece out of this morass.

 

I also value integrity above all but it is a rare virtue nowadays. Honesty begins with oneself.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

However, I think what is "wrong" with the US system is it seems that if you have more money from political donations to spend on campaigning and ads, you are more visible and may influence more people who don't know better.

 

I like that any eligible citizen can run for president. But again, without donations, he can only go so far in the system. This is what I have always hoped for Greece, that a person who cares for Greek people will appear and get the support of the people and be voted to lead Greece out of this morass.

 

I also value integrity above all but it is a rare virtue nowadays. Honesty begins with oneself.

Well, yes money rules. But that's not just in the US. Take Europe for example and the revolving door policy that has EU officials switch back and forth between EU Commission and Goldman Sachs. Or Greece where Government party financing has made opposition a full-time occupation for the greater part of our representatives. I won't even get into the Loans of the Government controlled banking sector to political parties or the whole mess with our subsidised pseudo Industrialists.

 

But in a sense, that may be what many in Greece wanted until they hit the wall. And then, In a rare moment of defiance they saw Tsipras and mistook an opportunistic loudmouthed fool for a defiant leader. This had little to do with honesty. Most were driven by pride and suffered the worst humiliation ever. After the experience of the last two Years: Greece is no more. There is no way in hell that the country will improve economically or even continue to exist a few decades down the road. Many saw that coming long ago but their warnings were ignored and they were labelled doomsayers or even fascists. Now we have passed the point of no return. The dynamic of Greece's decline can not be halted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friends,

I think our understanding of democracy differs. You seem to think that democracy is meant to produce the best government possible but that's not in the specs. Democracy is meant to produce the Government the People WANT. Granted, what people WANT is often enough not good for them. Nevertheless, that's what a working Democracy is supposed to deliver.

 

This is a good point but you should have put it in a slightly different way: Democracy is not meant to produce the Government that the people living in a specific country want. It's meant to produce what the people who have the right to vote want. And this makes a huge difference.

 

In addition to this, in reality, it's producing the government that the people who are "organized" in parties want. "Independent" voters can decide for shit. Their vote is useless and worthless, and in most political systems it ends up "supporting" the ascent to power of the very people they don't want in government!

 

Democracy as we know it is a skewed political system. Yet, it's the best we have overall, as compared with other systems of government we've tried. However, this doesn't mean that we should accept as it is, and for what it currently stands. As people we should collectively fight to improve democracy.

 

If we're talking about the US, it's clear that this year there was a strong movement to elect someone outside the "political system" who would also be a much better choice for America (and the world) in my opinion - Bernie Sanders. Instead, the powers that be within the Democratic party fought tooth and nail to keep him out of contention and go with a "safe" choice, Hilary.

 

On the other end, the Republicans did not have a candidate strong enough to stand in the way of the "outsider" Trump. In a sense Trump is the "Bernie" of the republican party. The radical outsider who despite all odds managed to unite the voice of the "unorganized" republican/right wing masses and win the right to stand against Hilary in a few days for the opportunity to become the next president.

 

It goes without saying that I don't like Trump and I despise everything he stands for, however, it may be a good thing for the US and for the rest of the world if the Americans elect Trump as their president. It may show to people that:

 

  1. unlikely candidates can sometimes win when the "independent/unorganized" voters decide to go against the grain and vote against the powers that be
  2. the political system, however good it is, still needs a change so that the voice of the "silent" majority can be heard before it erupts into discontent (as it's clearly happening now in the US, and as it happened in Greece with the election of the Tsipras government and in the UK with the Brexit vote).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Admin:

 

As people we should collectively fight to improve democracy.

Perhaps. But why exactly should "WE" do that?

And what do you mean by improve?

Make better?

And what do you mean when you use words like better or worse?

And most importantly: Who the hell is "WE"?

 

I'm not being an ass. I ask those question cause the way you answer them demonstrates your understanding of society and governance.

I doubt that the two of us mean the same things when we use words like "we, improve, better, democracy, society, governance, politics".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FriendofGreece

Except for the right to vote, the people have no power. The power is in the hands of the rich and powerful, i.e. the candidates whom the people have to vote on.

 

If democracy is to vote the government the people want, it is hard to reconcile the wants of everyone. The wants of the rich and powerful (1%) will trump those of the majority, silent or not (99%).

 

Maybe the question to ask is not what the people want, but what they need. Because it is a democracy, shouldn't it pay more attention to the needs of the majority (one person one need)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

FoG:

 

Except for the right to vote, the people have no power. The power is in the hands of the rich and powerful, i.e. the candidates whom the people have to vote on.

What are you talking about?

You have the power to utilise your time and your resources anyway you like. You are free to think and speak as you please. You are free to do and achieve whatever you please. You have all the power in the world so what more do you want?

 

You think bigger? Want to change the world? You can do that too. Some kid from Texas developed a Game engine two decades ago, sold it for a billion and now he has his own space program and is building a spaceport here in Texas. Some South African guy wanted to make the electric car a reality and created Tesla. Some kid dreamed of connecting the world through an electronic social network and facebook was born.

 

Individual people have power. Even the power to change the world. Most lack the ambition to even try though. A few try and succeed. Many more try and fail. What did you expect, guarantied Success? That would mean rigging the system now wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FriendofGreece

I am just talking about the power to vote a government (politics), I am not talking about other rights or powers. As I said at the beginning, it is usually understood that democracy means the right to vote (one person one vote).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FriendofGreece

Questions I have about democracy is does it work in countries:

 

1) with big population? (India prides itself to be the biggest democracy. It takes months to count the election ballots, and we don't know if they are rigged. Despite being a democracy, the caste system and the religions, the elites in the government, divide much the country such that its development has remained stagnant since independence.) 

 

2) where the majority of the population is uneducated and poor (e.g. African countries, India, China - do people even know who is the person they vote for?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Questions I have about democracy is does it work in countries:

 

1) with big population? (India prides itself to be the biggest democracy. It takes months to count the election ballots, and we don't know if they are rigged. Despite being a democracy, the caste system and the religions, the elites in the government, divide much the country such that its development has remained stagnant since independence.) 

 

2) where the majority of the population is uneducated and poor (e.g. African countries, India, China - do people even know who is the person they vote for?)

WE, the people, have supposedly all the power in a Democracy. But as I asked before: Who the hell is "WE"?

 

In the case of India the "WE" is a multitude of ethnicities that speak some 100 or so different languages and dialects. There are religious and cultural divisions and in some cases even open hostility. So what can this kind of WE produce? A foul compromise at the very best!

 

In the case of China the "WE" means the communist party. The party is the state and all ranking officials of the administration, army, judiciary get to their positions by participating in the party and rising through its ranks. You can still call that a democracy, of sorts, due to the fact that the party is open to all. Nevertheless, the act of voting doesn't mean much. Decisions are made by those who participate in the party and prove themselves within it. This may be the better form of governance for a large collective.

 

For a democracy to work, the WE must mean something. We must speak the same language, use the same terminology, share the same values. If this is not a given Democracy fails. So democracy is better suited for a small collective where "WE" have much in common and are thus able to reach a productive consensus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps. But why exactly should "WE" do that?

And what do you mean by improve?

Make better?

And what do you mean when you use words like better or worse?

And most importantly: Who the hell is "WE"?

 

I'm not being an ass. I ask those question cause the way you answer them demonstrates your understanding of society and governance.

I doubt that the two of us mean the same things when we use words like "we, improve, better, democracy, society, governance, politics".

 

"We" are the people who live within a country and "we" vote in this country. Each country/region has its own problems to solve. As FriendofGreece mentioned above, China and India have massive populations who are mostly uneducated and poor. In most cases these people are taken advantage of by "smart" politicians who are elected and then do nothing to improve these peoples' lives.

 

Of course using the words "liar" and "politician" in the same sentence is pretty common in most countries of the world. I guess the questions is why do people keep voting for politicians who blatantly lie to them over and over again. I don't think this has to do with the education of the public. Many educated people are as stupid as anyone else when it comes to supporting a political party. I think part of the problem is that in most countries people do not vote for an individual anymore. They vote the party the "support". People "support" a party, much like they support a soccer, football or hockey team. It's idiocy at its best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

"We" are the people who live within a country and "we" vote in this country. Each country/region has its own problems to solve. As FriendofGreece mentioned above, China and India have massive populations who are mostly uneducated and poor. In most cases these people are taken advantage of by "smart" politicians who are elected and then do nothing to improve these peoples' lives.

 

Of course using the words "liar" and "politician" in the same sentence is pretty common in most countries of the world. I guess the questions is why do people keep voting for politicians who blatantly lie to them over and over again. I don't think this has to do with the education of the public. Many educated people are as stupid as anyone else when it comes to supporting a political party. I think part of the problem is that in most countries people do not vote for an individual anymore. They vote the party the "support". People "support" a party, much like they support a soccer, football or hockey team. It's idiocy at its best.

Having travelled extensively I can assure you that the average European, North American is not more "Educated" than the average African, Asian or South American. The former may have more "Job Skills" but when it comes down to it: He's an arrogant fool who thinks he knows better.

 

Anyhow, you can of course define "WE" the people as the sum of all people living within the jurisdiction of a country. Nothing wrong with that definition.

But let me ask you:

 

Do all those people adhere to the same principles?

Share the same values?

Share a common Vision?

 

They all want more money to spend on more things to consume. They do have that in common. But beyond that?

 

In other words, on the most primitive level we are all the same. But to what degree can we identify our selves with the collective we call our country?

 

I was born in Greece, my parents were born in Greece and yet... I can not identify myself with Greece. You think I'm an exception? Think again.

 

You think the Turk in Thrace identifies himself with Greece?

The Pomak of Rodopi perhaps?

The Gypsy of Myriofyto?

 

Other then "More Money" what is there we could all agree on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FriendofGreece

I think in addition to more money, which would imply having jobs, pensions, education for their kids, heath care (if not state-funded), people want security and safety (police,army), good environment (clean air and water). Those would be basic needs that I think everyone, no matter what creed, race, financial status, education, etc., would want fulfilled by the government. Those needs are basically what the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, said about the "Chinese Dream" in his first speech after he became President in 2012. 

 

Even if a person living in a country, being born in that country, does not identify with the country, as long as he is a citizen, the state is responsible for him, whether he can vote or not. Various ethnicities or interest groups will have various wants, but shouldn't a (good) government take care of the basic needs of everyone first before looking at the specific extra wants of those ethnicities/interest groups? 

 

I agree in the case of India, it is a very difficult situation for democracy to be effective, considering Indians don't even understand between them with their different languages. With the Hindu religion being predominant and bullying people of other religions, the country seems doomed to perpetual conflicts.

 

I agree about what you said about China. There seems to be democratic elections at the lower levels of villages/towns to a limited extent. There is an interesting process of selection of candidates for the top level leadership based on merit. The meritocracy system goes back to Confucian times and seems to work for China. The thing they have to improve is the corruption, which is being dealt with on a massive scale by the present leadership. I think China is on the right track with how they select their leaders. This system works for them but may not necessarily work for India, even though India has a big population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

FoG:

 

I think in addition to more money, which would imply having jobs, pensions, education for their kids, heath care (if not state-funded), people want security and safety (police,army), good environment (clean air and water). Those would be basic needs that I think everyone, no matter what creed, race, financial status, education, etc., would want fulfilled by the government. Those needs are basically what the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, said about the "Chinese Dream" in his first speech after he became President in 2012.

Those are all things that cost money. So who pays for them? Are people willing to pay more money for better pensions. More money for better health care? More money for better education? More money for police and security? They'll need good paying jobs to earn all that money. And who is going to provide those Jobs? The Government?

 

And yes people want clean air but they also want to drive bigger cars. So lets wait until the Messiah of Mechanics resolves that contradiction.

 

But what exactly do you mean by better education?

About 7% of Texans send their kids to Private schools. The percentage for Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee is 20%. About 80% of those private schools have a religious affiliation. And they are expensive. If they were cheaper the attendance in Private Religious affiliated schools in the south west would be much higher.

 

That goes to show you that peoples definitions of "Better Education" differ. For some better education means the teaching of Biblical Creationism and a pass on mandatory vaccinations. So how inclusive can you be when you call for better education? And how is a state meant to define "Better Education" while avoiding exclusions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FriendofGreece

No, not better education, just education, i.e. until high school (Grade 12) at least. I believe in China primary school until Grade 8 is free but I am not sure. If people want "better education" than the state education, to fit their special religious requirements or other, they have to pay for it themselves. As I said, the role of government is to care for basic needs of everyone first.  

 

Of course, all those things cost money. It is the government's job to try to create jobs for the people in order for them to have money, pay taxes so that the government has money, to pay for those things (pensions, clean-up pollution, etc.). Creating jobs does not mean only government jobs but for example, create conditions conducive to investments, to innovation (start-ups, entreprises, etc.), etc. Creating jobs is done also privately, not just by state companies. 

 

Yes, people want clean air and water and bigger cars. So the government has to make laws about restricting pollution of industries, encouraging clean and green industries, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FriendofGreece

Interesting presentation by Daniel Bell starting at 18:46. (I did not watch the other presenters yet.)

 

Whose interest does democracy serve?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Governments can not create jobs by signing decrees.

 

Jobs are created wherever goods or services are produced.

To produce those you need investors.

For the investors to invest they need to make profits.

To make profits you need to offer your goods and services on the world market at competitive prices.

If you tax labour, profits and consumption with high taxes you can't be competitive.

If you don't tax them you won't be able to afford a comfy pension system, good healthcare and education, or strict environmental policies.

 

China is competitive because, they don't enforce environmental policies.

Because the keep wages low.

Because their pension and health system provides only very basic coverage.

You already mentioned that mandatory schooling is only 8 years in China.

Beyond that, secondary education is only available to those who make the cut.

And access to higher education is only for the best of the best.

The Chinese don't afford themselves the luxury to drag everyone along until graduation from Highschool.

 

Government spending is only 16% of GDP in China.

It is 56% of GDP in Greece. Not exactly an attractive investment destination.

 

So how should the Greek government attract investors, create jobs and pay for all the stuff you mentioned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FriendofGreece

Governments cannot do everything, the people must be willing to make sacrifices. if the government has no money, then the government spending has to be less, simple, otherwise you accumulate debt. When you are poor, don't live like a rich.

 

There are many factors for investments to come, including the economic and labour climate, tax breaks, energy stability, transport facilities and costs, ability to take profits out of the country, etc. The youth in Greece is quite educated which is a plus. I don't know what measures the Greek government is taking to encourage investments. For one thing, maybe the rich diaspora Greeks could help by investing in Greece. If the Greeks don't help themselves, who will?

 

Of course, corruption at all levels must be eliminated and those caught must be punished. Maybe the government should start by doing that. Look at the example of China, they have been pretty successful so far. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FriendofGreece

Stunning speeches by Lee Kuan Yew, the former PM of Singapore, on meritocracy. He is considered one of the best leaders in the world and is well respected. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But let me ask you:

 

Do all those people adhere to the same principles?

Share the same values?

Share a common Vision?

 

No, of course not. That's why in the "free world" we have all those different political parties, and political ideologies, so that everyone can find some ideas and values they can identify with.

 

The problem of course is that, as I wrote earlier, most (if not all) politicians are habitual liars, and they just say and do whatever will bring them into power. On top of this, the real ideology and values of most political parties is not very clear to their voters. In many cases people vote for a party, or a politician, without really knowing or understanding their agenda.

 

That's why many people have started questioning democracy as a political system which really represents the best interests of the people, or even the will of the majority (when clearly in most cases it's the minority who eventually selects who will govern a country).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

No, of course not. That's why in the "free world" we have all those different political parties, and political ideologies, so that everyone can find some ideas and values they can identify with.

 

The problem of course is that, as I wrote earlier, most (if not all) politicians are habitual liars, and they just say and do whatever will bring them into power. On top of this, the real ideology and values of most political parties is not very clear to their voters. In many cases people vote for a party, or a politician, without really knowing or understanding their agenda.

 

That's why many people have started questioning democracy as a political system which really represents the best interests of the people, or even the will of the majority (when clearly in most cases it's the minority who eventually selects who will govern a country).

Ok. That sounds really good. But how is it implemented in practical terms?

A country needs laws and those laws are best on some sort of value system. So who's value system do you base your laws on when you mean them to be binding for a diverse population. Claiming a 14 year old girl as your wife will land you in jail in Europe. And yet there are up to 1000 cases of grown Syrian men in Europe who claim and receive child AND spousal benefits for their underage wives in Europe.

 

So what happened to equality before the law? Has it been rewritten to state that you can't marry an underage girl unless it is permissible within the cultural context of your country of origin? How do you deal with cases like this on a legislative level?

 

Or what do you do with people who don't agree with your education system and send their kids to a religious charter school so they can be taught Creationism and be freed from vaccination requirements. We have a lot of those in Texas. What to you tell them when they ask to be paid back their contributions to a public education system they don't use. Are you gonna rob them or return their money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no practical way at this point to address all this. That's why I started this topic by saying that democracy has failed us in many ways, and even though it's still the best way of government we have, it's not perfect by any means and there's a lot of room for improvement.

 

I haven't heard of those cases of the Syrians who receive child and spousal benefits. That's really funny if it happens, and that's part of the problem we're having in the "liberal" west with accepting everyone's right to practice their crazy religious beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FriendofGreece

The problem is that the laws were not applied as they should be and applied to everyone. If you start making exceptions, you open the Pandora's box for everyone else.

 

If the law says you go to jail if you marry a 14 year-old girl, then send those men in jail. If they don't like the law, go back to Syria. Give the girl only the child benefit.

 

There should be no refund to those who send their kids to private religious schools. There are people who don't have kids and still have to pay taxes for other people's kids to go to school, they don't receive any refund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

ΒΟΗΘΕΙΣΤΕ ΤΟ HELLENISM.NET!

Εάν σας ενδιαφέρει να γίνετε ενεργό μέλος του Hellenism.Net σαν moderator στο forum, ή αν σας ενδιαφέρει να γράφετε άρθρα/κείμενα στους λογαριασμούς Facebook, Twitter και Google+ του Hellenism.Net, ή αν ασχολείστε με προγραμματισμό ιστοσελίδων, τότε επικοινωνήστε μαζί μας!

Χρειαζόμαστε εθελοντές για να κρατησουμε το  Hellenism.Net ζωντανό!

Follow us

Hellenism.Net Facebook Feed

×